Since the Tories came in , rough sleepers on the streets has doubled

[jon1959]

What a load of rubbish. You actually think that the Labour government pre 2010 have nothing to do with the state the country is in now ?. They spent billions of pounds of money they didn't have, which our children and childrens children will still be paying for in 50-100 years time. The country was almost bankrupt in 2010 and Corbyns answer to all this is to propose spending and borrowing more in future. How do you know who votes for the Conservatives anyway. There are many of working class and vulnerable people who must have voted for them in 2010 and since in order for them to get in. Corbyn and Mcdonnell are basically communists who dont give a fig about the ordinary people of this country and are only interested in lining their own pockets and the pockets of the people who are backing them (the Corbynistas). The richest and most powerful people in far left/communist places like Russia and China are the leaders, whilst most of the prople live in abject poverty.

'What a load of rubbish', to borrow from you.

If the UK was 'almost bankrupt' in 2010 (defined as the government being unable to pay all its debts immediately if they were all called in?) then that was true for most western governments - certainly the USA. But that technical definition is not useful or very illuminating. The official UK debt to GDP ratio in 2010 was under 70% - lower than many other western countries, and much lower than in earlier decades. If you add in the so-called 'hidden' debts or liabilities then that % rises steeply, but so it does for most other countries too. Most of the debate about unofficial debt and liabilities is so politicised that it is hard to find any figures to trust - but in any case it is not a new phenomenon.

As this piece describes, if the UK was broke in 2010 it had been broke for centuries! In other words it's a scare-mongering headline with no value.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tain-not-broke

Your solution to defecit and low growth seems to be cuts. The alternative strategy of investing to promote growth and greater national income through government capital projects (funded by low interest borrowing) is a century old and has worked all around the world. It may not fit with the Thatcherite 'corner shop' model of economics, but then the Chancellor of the Exchequer doesn't keep the assets and revenues of the UK in a shoe box under his bed either. Labour has been consistent in advocating a version of Keynsian economics to invest and build our way out of trouble - and has a lot of popular and academic support for its plans.

Yes, many working people voted Tory in 2010 - and 2015 - and every other election where they had a vote. They always have. A lot of people in elections vote against their own interests for a lot of complicated reasons. In my opinion it has historically been down to The Sun, The Mail and an unhealthy deference. Just maybe a few crunched the numbers and read the manifestos and thought Thatcher or Cameron were the answer. My 'out-laws' are an example.

Corbyn and McDonnell are not communists. They are left social democrats. They are also - obviously - amongst that small group of MPs who have consistently not lined their own pockets (see expenses). You are entitled to disagree with them and detest their politics, but the personal attack on them and their motives is pathetic.

[Feedback]

If the UK was 'almost bankrupt' in 2010 (defined as the government being unable to pay all its debts immediately if they were all called in?) then that was true for most western governments - certainly the USA. But that technical definition is not useful or very illuminating. The official UK debt to GDP ratio in 2010 was under 70% - lower than many other western countries, and much lower than in earlier decades. If you add in the so-called 'hidden' debts or liabilities then that % rises steeply, but so it does for most other countries too. Most of the debate about unofficial debt and liabilities is so politicised that it is hard to find any figures to trust - but in any case it is not a new phenomenon.

The issue was the deficit was running at >10% of GDP, which is a course for bankruptcy in the long run.

As this piece describes, if the UK was broke in 2010 it had been broke for centuries! In other words it's a scare-mongering headline with no value.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tain-not-broke

typically when the deficit is less than inflation adjusted growth the rising payments on debt is more than offset by the rising tax base to cover it.

Your solution to defecit and low growth seems to be cuts. The alternative strategy of investing to promote growth and greater national income through government capital projects (funded by low interest borrowing) is a century old and has worked all around the world.

it is one school of thought. not every school of thought advocates it.

It may not fit with the Thatcherite 'corner shop' model of economics, but then the Chancellor of the Exchequer doesn't keep the assets and revenues of the UK in a shoe box under his bed either. Labour has been consistent in advocating a version of Keynsian economics to invest and build our way out of trouble - and has a lot of popular and academic support for its plans.

it is hard to suggest what could happened if a Keynesian model had been adopted. It may have worked, ut may not. it is all supposition.

Yes, many working people voted Tory in 2010 - and 2015 - and every other election where they had a vote. They always have. A lot of people in elections vote against their own interests for a lot of complicated reasons. In my opinion it has historically been down to The Sun, The Mail and an unhealthy deference. Just maybe a few crunched the numbers and read the manifestos and thought Thatcher or Cameron were the answer. My 'out-laws' are an example.

it really is crass to suggest working people voting Tory are voting against their own best interests. you have no idea what is in the best interests of the 13.7m or so who voted Tory in this years election. People vote for a myriad of reasons and not everyone is obsessed with money in the way those on the left are.

Corbyn and McDonnell are not communists. They are left social democrats. They are also - obviously - amongst that small group of MPs who have consistently not lined their own pockets (see expenses). You are entitled to disagree with them and detest their politics, but the personal attack on them and their motives is pathetic.

They are not social democrats - Blair was a social democrat, so was Brown and Milliband. Corbyn and McDonnell are very much further left. McDonnell is on R4 quite a lot and you only have to listen to him to see he is not an advocate of social democracy.

[the other bob wilson]

The issue was the deficit was running at >10% of GDP, which is a course for bankruptcy in the long run.


typically when the deficit is less than inflation adjusted growth the rising payments on debt is more than offset by the rising tax base to cover it.


it is one school of thought. not every school of thought advocates it.


it is hard to suggest what could happened if a Keynesian model had been adopted. It may have worked, ut may not. it is all supposition.

it really is crass to suggest working people voting Tory are voting against their own best interests. you have no idea what is in the best interests of the 13.7m or so who voted Tory in this years election. People vote for a myriad of reasons and not everyone is obsessed with money in the way those on the left are.

They are not social democrats - Blair was a social democrat, so was Brown and Milliband. Corbyn and McDonnell are very much further left. McDonnell is on R4 quite a lot and you only have to listen to him to see he is not an advocate of social democracy.

[Feedback]

why is it the left are always those who go on about money then?